Rating: 
Summary: A word of caution about objections to this fine work
Review: There is no better translation available to English language readers than this volume by Vermes. The objections registered by some ill-informed conspiracy-theorists concerning Vermes are themselves based on no real evidence. Vermes has an opinion, a very well-informed scholarly opinion, formed from years of study--honest study. He is not a flaming seeker of fortune and fame as are many people who try to make much more out of what is in the DSS than anyone can possible know. As one trained as a scholar in this area of study, I offer two observations: First, my own word of caution: Beware of DSS conspiracy theories and wild claims made from esoteric so-called readings of the texts. Second, my advice: Read the Scrolls in this fine translation for yourself and ask whether Vermes's ideas are reasonable or whether the wild allegorical re-readings offered by certain flamboyant interpreters have any real merit.
Rating: 
Summary: Less important than you think, and dubiously edited
Review: There is something about the Dead Sea Scrolls that brings out the worst in scholars; from John M.Allegro, who started out as one of their editors and ended up deciding that Jesus was a mushroom, to those who write (and publish!) books to prove that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness, or that He never existed.
The fact is that their importance has been overestimated; and that for a very good - or very bad - reason. Long before 1948, Western historical writers, especially from the Protestant tradition, had developed an itch to find "alternative" sources for Palestinian history, to change the picture so far known - to disprove (to put it brutally) the historicity of the Gospels. This itch came before any sources: it was the desire to disprove the Gospels that drove what passed for historical research, not the opposite; and, the absence of such sources, German and American scholars developed entire arrays of question-begging techniques to deny their value - techniques quite alien (and I speak from experience) to the average historian.
It is of course true that, as a cache of largely new documents about first-century Palestine, the Scrolls are of great interest; but the area they cover is hardly undiscovered country. Long before their discovery, the New Testament, Josephus, the earliest portions of the Talmud (however difficult to interpret) and sundry other sources, such as Classical and Samaritan, had told us much more about Roman-age Palestine than about most other Roman provinces (compare the difficulty of writing a history of Palestine with that of writing one about, say, Illyria or Mauretania or Britain or even Syria). This is what makes it so infuriating for the would-be deniers: not only are the documents there, but the more serious research is actually carried out, the more their first-century origin becomes clear - the more their picture is confirmed - the less, rather than more, any reason to disbelieve other than outright rejection can be advanced.
And the new documents have forced no major reinterpretation of history - even though a number of unfortunates have tried their best to prove otherwise. That is the point. From the moment they were first publicized, an immense reservoir of pent-up hope has focussed on them, the hope to have finally something to show that eagerly-anticipated vision - a world without Jesus, or at least a Jesus without miracles and without Resurrection. It simply did not work out that way: the documents, whose focus is really quite narrow, have nothing to say about Jesus and - in spite of frequent allusions to the contrary - have little in common with His views and do nothing to disprove His originality.
A complete English version of what has so far been published is of course necessary; I could however wish that it had been carried out by less partial and less opinionated an authority than Professor Vermes. Some of Professor V's readings positively damage understanding: in particular, his insistence on placing the common Dead Sea Scroll usage GODS for ANGELS in inverted commas is presumptuous and intrusive, it imposes on the material a presumption of similarity with modern Jewish monotheism that the facts do not warrant. We know from St.Paul - especially Galatians - that angels were objects of autonomous worship in contemporary Hebraism; and some of the most impressive writing in the Scrolls themselves is placed in the mouth of angels such as Michael (page 523). The growth of Aeon-worship among the groups called Gnostics tells us the same thing: in Hebraic and Christian environments in the first couple of centuries AD, Angel-worship was the primary temptation. And we know that a similar evolution had taken place in Zoroastrianism, where the various orders of angels beneath Ahura Mazda developed their own identities and their own all but divine cult. Indeed, their technical name was YAZATA - "worthy of cult". It is under Christian and Muslim influence that post-Massoretic Hebraism returned to an extreme monotheism; the evidence is that, in the first century, Hebraic thought was moving in a quite different direction. So why, except for prejudice, does Professor Vermes write "gods"? Incredibly, the words ANGELS and GODS are not even found in the General Index.
Other aspects of his opinionated attitude can be found in many places. I will just mention one: discussing the Book of Enoch, he says:"The bulk of the fragments is too small for translation. It would be wholly meaningless to render into English the retranslation into Aramaic of the Ethiopic and/or Greek texts supplied by their editor, J.T. Milik, who has conjecturally filled the many gaps in the Qumran manuscripts." Excuse me? Wholly meaningless? English readers only have a translation of two translations, the Greek and the Ethiopian; Milik has reconstructed the original; and it is "wholly meaningless" to present to the English public a translation of this indubitably better source? There are many such positions taken with insufficient or no reason. My advice to people interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls is therefore this: buy and read the book; but be on your guard, and watch carefully, for any one of the many unmotivated, opinionated, and aggressive statements that Professor Vermes unfortunately produces in such quantity.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for the student, scholar and curious
Review: Vermes has again, in this updated version of the DSS in English, held fast to the clear-eyed scholarship that has been the hallmark of his work. Of course, the individual reader must ultimately decide for himself how objective Vermes is in his presentation. For example, I view with skepticism Vermes's assertion that the original language of 1 Enoch is, without doubt, Aramaic. Frankly, there is compelling evidence that the original story or stories that became Enoch were originally written in Ethiopic, or were tales that traveled from East to West via the Phoenicians. Other plausible theories abound. Nonetheless, there are many gems here, and, in my opinion, this book contains one the most honest and pure translations of 1 Enoch (along with the fragments from the Book of Giants), complementing the tremendous service done to Enoch by James Charlesworth in "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Old Testament Pseudepigraphia, Vol 1)." When I was doing postgraduate work in theology and biblical history, I always wished for a book like this (i.e., Vermes' DSS as updated in 1997). This work is, in my opinion, ideal for those who wish to study alone, and even for use in organized church study groups. There's plenty of "light" here, and Vermes indicates and suggests where the reader might look without insisting.
Rating: 
Summary: Dubious origins
Review: Vermes, in his editorializing in this book, adheres perfectly to the party line of the founders and propagators of the scientific "scandal of the century". He barely acknowledges any contradictory points of view; and when he does, his refutations are either inadequate or nonexistent. For example, in a single paragraph in his introductory material Vermes rejects the well- and voluminously stated opinions of Norman Golb regarding the so-called 4QMMT scroll. What is the stated basis of Vermes' rejection? That the calendric information at the beginning of the scroll is solar rather than lunar. However, when the reader arrives at the translation of the scroll itself, it is only to read in the explanatory rubric that Vermes thinks that the calendar is, in all probability, not a part of the body of the following text -- the text being the part of the scroll that Golb had written about.
While Vermes is not given to resorting to the ad hominem attacks and ridicule so often used by the "keepers of the consensus" regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, his strict adherence to the party line of the "keepers" is a constant and depressing reminder of the scandal that culminated in the publication of this book. Such things as questionable translations, and the elsewhere-learned reasons for them, are sad further reminders of the scandal.
In order to dissuade future scholars from succumbing to the tempation to perpetrate or participate in immoral and illegal activities in the furtherance of their personal academic careers, all of the people involved in the Dead-Sea-Scrolls scandal should be stripped of their academic credentials -- posthumously if that is now the individual case. The stripping would, of course, include Mr. Vermes.
Rating:
Summary: Dubious origins
Review: Vermes, in his editorializing in this book, adheres perfectly to the party line of the founders and propagators of the scientific "scandal of the century". He barely acknowledges any contradictory points of view; and when he does, his refutations are either inadequate or nonexistent. For example, in a single paragraph in his introductory material Vermes rejects the well- and voluminously stated opinions of Norman Golb regarding the so-called 4QMMT scroll. What is the stated basis of Vermes' rejection? That the calendric information at the beginning of the scroll is solar rather than lunar. However, when the reader arrives at the translation of the scroll itself, it is only to read in the explanatory rubric that Vermes thinks that the calendar is, in all probability, not a part of the body of the following text -- the text being the part of the scroll that Golb had written about.
While Vermes is not given to resorting to the ad hominem attacks and ridicule so often used by the "keepers of the consensus" regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, his strict adherence to the party line of the "keepers" is a constant and depressing reminder of the scandal that culminated in the publication of this book. Such things as questionable translations, and the elsewhere-learned reasons for them, are sad further reminders of the scandal.
In order to dissuade future scholars from succumbing to the tempation to perpetrate or participate in immoral and illegal activities in the furtherance of their personal academic careers, all of the people involved in the Dead-Sea-Scrolls scandal should be stripped of their academic credentials -- posthumously if that is now the individual case. The stripping would, of course, include Mr. Vermes.
Rating:
Summary: Dubious origins
Review: Vermes, in his editorializing in this book, adheres perfectly to the party line of the founders and propagators of the scientific "scandal of the century". He barely acknowledges any contradictory points of view; and when he does, his refutations are either inadequate or nonexistent. For example, in a single paragraph in his introductory material Vermes rejects the well- and voluminously stated opinions of Norman Golb regarding the so-called 4QMMT scroll. What is the stated basis of Vermes' rejection? That the calendric information at the beginning of the scroll is solar rather than lunar. However, when the reader arrives at the translation of the scroll itself, it is only to read in the explanatory rubric that Vermes thinks that the calendar is, in all probability, not a part of the body of the following text -- the text being the part of the scroll that Golb had written about.
While Vermes is not given to resorting to the ad hominem attacks and ridicule so often used by the "keepers of the consensus" regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, his strict adherence to the party line of the "keepers" is a constant and depressing reminder of the scandal that culminated in the publication of this book. Such things as questionable translations, and the elsewhere-learned reasons for them, are sad further reminders of the scandal.
In order to dissuade future scholars from succumbing to the tempation to perpetrate or participate in immoral and illegal activities in the furtherance of their personal academic careers, all of the people involved in the Dead-Sea-Scrolls scandal should be stripped of their academic credentials -- posthumously if that is now the individual case. The stripping would, of course, include Mr. Vermes.
|
